´óÏó´«Ã½

502

Comments

1. At 10:45 AM on 12 Oct 2007, wrote:

   test (10:34)

2. At 11:09 AM on 12 Oct 2007, Charlie wrote:

   
   ...could I suggest if "its" had alcohol, you get it off

   If it hasn't you get "it" on...

3. At 11:09 AM on 12 Oct 2007, wrote:

   YUP!
   Old Mother Hubbard lived in a shoe,
   She had so many children,
   She didn't know what to do.
   So she moved to Atlanta.

   Fri Oct 12 10:47:38 BST 2007
   

4. At 11:20 AM on 12 Oct 2007, Tom Harrop wrote:

   Blog bu@@ered! (again)

5. At 11:34 AM on 12 Oct 2007, wrote:

   It may be 502ing, but I know a post from me on the Beach still got through even after it got 502'd...

   11:22

6. At 11:34 AM on 12 Oct 2007, Brian Perkins wrote:

   And now on Radio 4...a special SOS message...will the family of the PM Blog please get in touch, as soon as possible, with the ´óÏó´«Ã½ at Wood Lane, London. The blog is dangerously ill.

   And that's the end of the SOS message.

7. At 11:42 AM on 12 Oct 2007, Aperitif wrote:

   *Sigh* And I have contributed such wisdom this morning - now it will never be read... Oh, OK, it was "thanks for the hugs on the beach"...

8. At 12:31 PM on 12 Oct 2007, Joe Palooka wrote:

   Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!

9. At 12:41 PM on 12 Oct 2007, wrote:

   YUP!
   Old Mother Hubbard lived in a shoe,
   She had so many children,
   She didn't know what to do.
   So she moved to Atlanta.

   Fri Oct 12 10:47:38 BST 2007
   

10. At 01:02 PM on 12 Oct 2007, Little Miss Poppy wrote:

    Oh Eddieeeeeee! (lammy-pie)

    I'm in the local paper today talking about my obsession with shoes! Shoe shoe shoes! And oh my god Eddie - I've just had that Trisha Goddard show phoning me asking if I could go on their show! - I don't think so!!!! But Eddie lammy-pie - If it was yoooooou - I would do it like a shot! :0)

    Anyway hope all you froggers are well xx

    Laters.

    502'd :-(

11. At 01:48 PM on 12 Oct 2007, stewart M wrote:

    testing testing
    one two, buckle my shoe

12. At 02:21 PM on 12 Oct 2007, Eddie Mair wrote:

    test 1407

13. At 02:31 PM on 12 Oct 2007, silver-fox wrote:

    502 please skedaddle.

14. At 02:32 PM on 12 Oct 2007, wrote:

    I'd rather just believe that it's done by little elves running around.

    testing
    Fri Oct 12 14:02:20 BST 2007
    

15. At 02:43 PM on 12 Oct 2007, wrote:

    I'd rather just believe that it's done by little elves running around.

    testing
    Fri Oct 12 14:02:20 BST 2007
    

16. At 02:54 PM on 12 Oct 2007, The Intermittent Horse wrote:

    testing testing
    one two, buckle my shoe
    three four, this is a bore!

17. At 03:39 PM on 12 Oct 2007, Belinda wrote:

    I think the hamster got tired of his wheel.

    15.27

18. At 03:50 PM on 12 Oct 2007, wrote:

    Horse (16), is it possible to buckle horse shoes?

    15:34

19. At 04:17 PM on 12 Oct 2007, Sum Ting Wong wrote:

    Is there something wrong with this Blog?

20. At 05:22 PM on 12 Oct 2007, wrote:

    I just heard the fireballed judge was from Charred!

    I am a deeply superficial person.
    -- Andy Warhol

21. At 05:46 PM on 12 Oct 2007, wrote:

    War is an equal opportunity destroyer.

    You had mail, but the super-user read it, and deleted it!

    What I mean (and everybody else means) by the word QUALITY cannot be broken down into subjects and predicates. This is not because Quality is so mysterious but because Quality is so simple, immediate, and direct.
    -- R. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"

    Take that, 502!
    xx
    ed
    Fri Oct 12 17:00:18 BST 2007
    

22. At 06:27 PM on 12 Oct 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    FF @ 18, put 'em in a really determined bench vice?

23. At 07:42 PM on 12 Oct 2007, mittfh wrote:

    And guess what? iPM's blog is also screwed...perhaps it didn't like six threads being opened up within half a day...

    (Wahey! 502 x 2!)

24. At 11:35 PM on 13 Oct 2007, mittfh wrote:

    Another day, another attempt...
    Meanwhile I've tried sending about 3 messages over the past 24 hours to the iPM blog - that's also 502'ing like crazy...

    Guess what? We've screwed up two blogs!
    Eddie: are there any other ´óÏó´«Ã½ blogs you'd like us to destroy? :)
    

25. At 10:55 AM on 14 Oct 2007, DI Wyman wrote:

    testing @ 11:03 (am)

26. At 04:15 PM on 14 Oct 2007, wrote:

    502 502! You can't get meeeeeeeeee weeeee!!!

27. At 05:03 PM on 14 Oct 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Mr Fish (22) Ouch! I hope you'd take them off the poor horse's feet first?!

28. At 05:30 PM on 14 Oct 2007, Gillian wrote:

    Horse (16) Five, six, is this Blog fixed??

    17:34

29. At 06:48 PM on 14 Oct 2007, wrote:

    Fifi,

    I think the Lying Scotsman should submit. Never mind the competition!

    "Back in the days of Shock and awe....

    "We had a chance to change our minds................

    xxx
    ed

30. At 10:14 PM on 14 Oct 2007, The Intermittent Horse wrote:

    FF (18) & Mr Fish (22) & Aperitif (27) - At times I move so fast that the generated heat automatically buckles my shoes. As for vices, I have enough of my own, thank you!

31. At 08:37 AM on 15 Oct 2007, wrote:

    Ah, so that explains the smell of hot metal!

32. At 08:41 AM on 15 Oct 2007, The Intermittent Horse wrote:

    Gillian (28) - Seven, Eight, It's in a bit of a state.

33. At 08:55 AM on 15 Oct 2007, wrote:

    Eddie, a serious suggestion. If you are interviewing or discussing the comment made by Andy Burnham regarding taxes recognising marriage, can we have some questions to the commentators regarding why those woho are single/divorced/widowed are expected to pay more tax than those who are married? According to the Office of National Statistics, 30% of households in the UK are single occupancy (2001 census figures). If you live on your own, this proposed change in the tax burden will have a detrimental effect on your disposible income. If you lose your job or your financial circumstances change, it has more of an affect than for a married couple. If you are single, the chances are that you place less of a burden on the local council/authority than a couple with children. However, you pay substantially more per head than, say, a couple with two teenage children living next door to you. All the major parties seem to have this ideal that marriage is the "perfect" state for people to be in, and that those not in this position should help pay for those who are. Enough is enough. If there is money spare in the budget for a tax cut, it must apply equally to all, irrespective of their marital status.

34. At 10:58 AM on 15 Oct 2007, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    FF (33)

    Recent research indicates that the tax & benefits system actually discourages 2-parent families, whether married or not.

    [After a week away I had been hoping to learn that the Frog had a new spring in its step, but apparently it hasn't (Ref. Mittfh 24 - hahaha). ]

    11:06

35. At 01:58 PM on 15 Oct 2007, Gillian wrote:

    T.I.Horse (32) Nine, ten - No change then?!

36. At 02:38 PM on 15 Oct 2007, The Intermittent Horse wrote:

    Gillian (35) = Eleven, Twelve - It should really be shelved!

37. At 02:48 PM on 15 Oct 2007, wrote:

    I'm surprised to hear you say that, Vyle. Do you have any details re the research? I find that every time a new tax rebate/credit/incentive is announced, it is invariably targetted to help "hard working families". It's never "We can cut a bit off income tax, so let's cut it equally, making life a little better for everyone". No, instead it's "Let's create a tax benefit that will help families". This is frankly insulting to me. Circumstances currently dictate that I am single. Why is it that my tax burden is deemed to be of less importance than that of a married couple/family? As I said earlier, a case in point would be Council Tax. As a single person with no dependents, I put less drain on local services that, say, the unmarried couple next door, and eve less than the family with three children opposite. However, I pay more per capita in local taxes than either. I don't mind paying a fari tax, but it seems that the "system" is set up to have a fair tax for familes, and an unfair tax on everyone else.

    rant over...

38. At 04:10 PM on 15 Oct 2007, Couples for Justice wrote:

    FF (37)
    Single people should pay 50% more tax than married people - that way we could all be equally miserable! :o)

39. At 04:55 PM on 15 Oct 2007, wrote:

    Thirteen, fourteen
    Brain is hourtin'

    ... sorry, I don't have a Norn Iron accent normally. Must be the company I'm keeping.

    ;o)

    Fifi

40. At 05:04 PM on 15 Oct 2007, Gillian wrote:

    TIHorse (36)
    Thirteen, fourteen, That sounds really mean!

41. At 06:06 PM on 15 Oct 2007, wrote:

    Couples For Justice (38) I hope you're saying that as a joke. I'd hate for someone to think that it was a real suggestion....

42. At 06:16 PM on 15 Oct 2007, The Intermittent Horse wrote:

    Gillian (40) = Fifteen, sixteen - problems are routine.

43. At 07:07 PM on 15 Oct 2007, Gillian wrote:

    TIHorse (42) Seventeen, eighteen, we're all waitin'........

44. At 07:48 PM on 15 Oct 2007, The Intermittent Horse wrote:

    Gillian (42) = Nineteen, twenty - are we the cognoscenti?

45. At 09:44 PM on 15 Oct 2007, Humph wrote:

    Re TIH (44), Twenty-one, twenty-two, eeerrrrmmmm, sorry, what does cognoscenti mean? I know that this does nor rhyme, but I am losing the thread here. Sorry. Could you help at all?

    H. :o/

46. At 11:34 PM on 15 Oct 2007, The Intermittent Horse wrote:

    Humph, if you have to ask, then by definition, you're not one of the cognoscenti. But you knew that, didn't you?

47. At 09:33 AM on 17 Oct 2007, wrote:

    Twenty-three, twenty-four, too late to shut the stable door...

48. At 12:55 PM on 17 Oct 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Twenty-five, twenty-six, it's impossible to fix

49. At 12:58 PM on 17 Oct 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Twenty-five, twenty-six, it's impossible to fix

50. At 02:19 PM on 17 Oct 2007, witchiwoman wrote:

    twenty-seven, twenty-eight, it's in a wretched state

51. At 05:28 PM on 17 Oct 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Twenty-nine, thirty, and we start to feel shirty

    (even if our posts don't actually appear thirty times)

52. At 08:50 PM on 17 Oct 2007, Gillian wrote:

    Thirty-one, thirty-two, another 502?

53. At 09:03 PM on 17 Oct 2007, wrote:

    Thirty-one, thirty-two, this blog is out to eliminate YOU!

54. At 08:31 AM on 18 Oct 2007, The Intermittent Horse wrote:

    Thirty-three, thirty-four, last one out, close the door!

55. At 10:04 AM on 18 Oct 2007, wrote:

    Thirty-five, thirty-six, Eddie still wants you to send in pics*

    
    *(but he'll be blooming lucky after what he wrote about us...)

56. At 01:42 PM on 18 Oct 2007, The Intermittent Horse wrote:

    Thirty-seven, thirty-eight, a blog that makes you fulminate.

57. At 04:16 PM on 18 Oct 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Thirty-nine, forty, it's making Eddie dorty.

58. At 05:43 PM on 18 Oct 2007, Gillian wrote:

    Forty-one, forty-two, What's a Frogger to do?

59. At 07:30 PM on 18 Oct 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Forty-three, forty-four, send each post ten times or more...

60. At 07:42 PM on 18 Oct 2007, wrote:

    Forty-three, forty-four, go to Bournemouth, be 502'd no more.

61. At 11:38 PM on 18 Oct 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Forty-five, forty-six, or just have hysterics.

    someone else can do the rhyme with 'six' next time

62. At 09:49 AM on 22 Oct 2007, wrote:

    Forty- seven, forty-eight, we stayed up till very late.